THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.CC/16/96 Mr. Rajiv Shankar Pathiyil Residing at :B-4, Gurukripa, Jeevan Nagar, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053. …..Complainant.

Versus M/s. Dev Enterprises Consisting of 3 Partners

1) Mrs.Kanchan M. Kolambekar

2) Mr.MukeshChandrakantDhopawakar

3) Mr.Kaustubh A. Jawlekar

4. Mr.Ishan Sharma -Director Through its Authorised Signatory, Mr.MadanKolambekar Having Ofice at:- Shree Siddhi Vinayak Apartment, Ground Floor, Plot No.C2/1, Sector No.23, Darave, Nerul, Seawood, Nerul 400706. …..Opponents.

BEFORE:

Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member PRESENT For Complainant/s : Adv. Omkar Shinde i/b Shinde & Co.

For Opponent/s : None (Ex-parte)

Order

(26/09/2024)

Per: Hon’ble Dr. Satish A. Munde, Presiding Member

1) The Complainant/s has filed present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The brief facts of the consumer complaint are as follows:

2) This complaint is one of the several consumer complaints against the same Opponent. The Complainant/s stated that the Complainant/s has booked the Flat No.502, Dev Splendor, 5^th Floor, admeasuring area 1110 sq. ft. Plot No.72, Sector- 45, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, with the Opponent/s, for total consideration of Rs. 49,95,000/-. The Opponent/s promised to hand over the possession of the flat to the Complainant/s in the year April, 2014. Out of total consideration the Complainant/s has paid the amount of Rs. 15,15,150/-to the Opponent/s. Out of total consideration the Complainant has paid the total amount of Rs.15,15,150/- (Rs.1,00,000 + Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.5,15,150/-) to the Opponents vide cheque dated10/06/2013, 20/06/20213 and 04/07/2013 respectively. The Complainant state that Opponent called the Complainant on 13/04/2014 and stated that the above flat cannot be handed over to the Complainant and would like to return the amount of the Complaint, thereafter Complainant visited Opponent’s Office several times but all in vain.

3) The Complainant/s stated that Complainant/s requested several times to the Opponent/s for possession of the flat but all in vain. The Opponent/s neither registered the Agreement for Sale nor Sale Deed nor handover the possession of the disputed flat to the Complainant/s. Hence, this complaint before this Commission. The Complainant/s prayed for the possession of the disputed flat or in alternate refund of Rs.15,15,150/- with 18% interest, Rs.15,00,000/- for torture and compensation and costs of litigation of Rs.50,000/-.

4) So as to support the claim of the Complainant/s, the Complainant/s adduced the documentary evidence on record, such as, copy of cheque, allotment letter, legal notice, email receipt acknowledgment, bank memo for dishounoring of cheque and other relevant documents.

5) Notice before admission was issued. The complaint was admitted. Notice was duly served the opponent/s. The matter was proceeded ex-parte against the opponent/s on 28^th June, 2016.

6) Perused the complaint, evidence affidavit of the complainant, written notes of argument of complainant, and other relevant documents filed on record. Heard the advocate for complainant/s. The following points arise for our determination and we have recorded our findings for the reason given below: -

REASONS As to the Point No.1- “Deficiency in service”

7) Heard advocate for complainant/s. Perused the record. The complainant/s has proved that the Complainant/s has booked the disputed flat with the Opponent/s, for total consideration of Rs. 27,98,400/-. The Complainant/s has paid the amount of Rs.15,15,150/- to the Opponent/s towards consideration of the disputed flat. The Opponent/s promised to hand over the possession of the flat to the Complainant/s in the